From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 01/10/01
OK, OK, RDF does a fairly good job of turning syntax into triples (i.e., a graph). But you know what? I don't care at all about these triples! As far as I am concerned, this could be Lists, or Sets, or just about anything. I view this aspect of RDF as conceptuatlly no different from just about any mapping into just about any semi-structured data formalism. What I care about is the other part of RDF and RDFS (or, at least, what the other part should be). I care about sequences, sets, bags, and alternatives. I care about non-ground statements. I care about reification (really, I do) and higher-order and modal constructs. I care about type theories with type hierarchies and defined types. I care about lots of other related notions. RDF and RDFS provide me absolutely nothing for any of these, because they provide me with nothing more than a mapping into triples---no domain theory, no axiomatization, not even a decent informal description---for the meaning of any of these things. peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST